Are you seriously making the argument that Zimmerman and Martin weren't in a fight due to inconclusive DNA results? lol 
That's not the argument I'm making, but then again, it's easier to twist what someone says than it is to address what they
actually said, isn't it?
I shouldn't even bother responding to a post that so obviously misrepresents my positions but I have five minutes to spare, so what the hell...
First let me point out that the DNA test wasn't inconclusive or, for that matter, conclusive as to whether a fight occurred or not. The expert in question testified it's unlikely that no DNA would have been transferred from Martin to the clothing of Zimmerman and vice versa, and that no evidence of Martin's DNA was found on the gun itself or the pistol grip, and yet that is what his examination concluded. If you're going to misrepresent what I said and what was said in Court then at least try to make your misrepresentation plausible.
I assert that if the expert witness in question provided accurate testimony (and I have no reason to doubt that he did) then there is a discrepancy between what the witnesses say they saw or heard and what some physical evidence suggests. This doesn't mean that they didn't fight. After all, it's entirely possible for the discrepancy to have a logical explanation. But whether you like it or not,
there appears to be a discrepancy between the results of this DNA test and eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence.
Now, it's a well known fact that eye-witnesses aren't necessarily reliable and that their recollection of events can be far detached from what actually happened for a number of reasons. So what I suggest isn't that a fight never occurred, but that there is a discrepancy and that it raises questions about what happened and the severity of the altercation.
If you're going to reply to this then please try to understand my position. You wouldn't want me to think that your misrepresentation was intentional and a result of your, shall we be polite and say less-than-truthful nature?
So, according to you, the DNA test, which admittedly cannot prove or disprove causation, nullifies the first hand testimony of an eye witness (for the prosecution no less), the testimony of the lead detective on the case (again, also for the prosecution) and Zimmerman's actual injuries?
You know... I'm not responsible or liable because you misinterpreted what I wrote. I never said that the DNA disproved any of the testimony provided in this case. But now it's starting to sound as if you're misrepresenting things on purpose. You should probably stop doing that.
Come back to earth please.
Jeez, I was about to type the same thing to you. What are the chances?
